Do you feel an encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit is just as reputable as, say, the Britannica? Sure, it's fun to read, but would you reference it in a report?
2006-08-18 18:43:21 · 9 answers · asked by Sullivan Smith 2 in Computers & Internet ➔ Other - Computers
It's interesting that you bring this up. This article should help answer your question:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
It's important to note that both Wikipedia and Britannica have errors. As the article points out, there are usually more found in Wikipedia within each major category studied. However, the difference is not always by much.
Overall, Wikipedia is constantly improving on quality and might soon reach to the same levels that Britannica provides. That remains to be seen, of course, but for most topics it is safe to reference Wikipedia especially when you have a secondary professional reference that backs it up. Often what you see in a Wikipedia article is a referenced external link that takes you to a professional study that backs up the claim.
So yes, I'd say it would be fine in a report as long as you cite more than just Wikipedia by itself.
2006-08-18 19:39:35 · answer #1 · answered by SirCharles 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Like any Internet reference, Wikipedia needs to be used with caution. The same could be said about some books, as there are always contradictory sources.
When using Wikipedia for a report, as long as Wikipedia is cited as the source, then the readers will be able to judge for themselves how credible it is.
And if the Britannica is such an infallible source of information, why do they publish an addendum volume every year with previously omitted information and correction on previously erroneous information?
2006-08-19 01:52:57 · answer #2 · answered by Jim T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not always but I find it reasonable for most topics that I am familiar with and have read up on just to see what's in there. I wouldn't use it as my sole source of information though if I'm looking something up.
I do think the information you find on Wikipedia is more up-to-date than on Britannica since it is constantly updated and seems to be better suited for checking up on pop-culture topics and reading up on the latest technical information on all the computer related gadgets, but you also get a lot of "biased facts" thrown in on more interpretive topics especially in the area of politics or historical events.
Overall it has its value, but you need to be careful if you quote it though... Especially the people here who answer their questions by copying and pasting a whole Wikipedia entry without even reading it first. ;)
2006-08-19 02:02:30 · answer #3 · answered by anonfuture 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually I have not found incorrect information on wiki yet. I consider it very credible. I know it's strange since it's very open source but that's a good thing. It allows the freedom of information. It is managed so it's not like that information will be falsified. Even their foreign info is accurate. I've checked info on Japanese pop stars and it's always right.
2006-08-19 01:50:09 · answer #4 · answered by computerqfl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia is good and because anyone can edit it tends to have more up to date and useful information. Although anyone can edit, the change must be approved by someone at Wikipedia so it's not as open as your question implies.
2006-08-19 01:51:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of the times. They have a team who reviews the information uploaded.
Vijay
http://vjsimha.blogspot.com/
2006-08-19 01:47:26 · answer #6 · answered by Vijay Harivanam 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, i consider it to be pretty reputable. If not, it is a good starting point.
2006-08-19 01:49:14 · answer #7 · answered by starting over 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its my sole source of info
im too lazy to search the internet for info
2006-08-19 01:48:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes most of the time
2006-08-19 01:48:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋